Skarekrough:I've been in to see the Doc twice in the past two years and each time I've walked away with a prescription for Oxycodone. The amount they give me us just ludicrous; a weeks supply for something that will likely start to abate due to treatment in 24 hours or so.

They just can't seem to give me enough of it.

I'm reluctant to take it. Both times I took one dose because I wouldn't be able to sleep with the pain being as bad as it was and then that was it. A few months later I take a drive down to the local Police Dept to surrender it so it isn't hanging around the house (I have young kids).

simon_bar_sinister:Just stop with War On American Citizens already. Just unlock the pharmacy. Period. Want to get high on medical heroin (yes, it's evderywhere else just not here)? Get hot. Like some vicodin for big cleaning days? Head on over to Walgreens. Want some adderal to help with that lard ass? Motor on over to CVS. Have a legit medical need for the pain pills, antibiotics, blood pressure pills etc? Get a chit (prescription) from your doctor and get the drugs for 1/2 price and even covered under insurance. No chit? You pay. Had that illness, injury etc. before and know what the doc is going to give you? Save a buck on M.D. fees and just get the meds. Let the M.D. use his time to actually help someone who needs it.

All that extra money from OTC drug sales? It should be split 4 ways. 25% to the retailer for his new paper work, 25% tax to support inspection etc. 25% manufacturer profit (offset real need discounts) 25% rehab superfund. Watch enough friends and family pay a real consequence for a change drug use will moderate on its own.

Employers will still be free to mandate only non-recreational use of drugs. Just like some treat nicotine like drugs now. If you want a safety critical job like police, EMS, driver you may have to abstain.

Doing drugs doesn't make you a criminal any more than eating carrots makes you a scientist or smoking cigars makes you a deer poacher. Engaging in criminal activity makes you a criminal.

Laws of prohibition, support of laws of prohibition is anti-freedom, anti-civil rights anti-american.

Jon iz teh kewl:Tenatra: Jon iz teh kewl: an alcoholic isn't an addict to alcohol. he's a violent man that beats his family. someone else who treats their family nicely and drinks the same amount is considered normal

Spend some time around heavy alcoholics and watch their withdrawals, they can't function without it.

i used to drink about 3-6 beers every night to fall asleep. i quit like 11 months later and had no withdrawal symptoms

oh lawd, you drank six beers from presumably 6 o'clock in the afternoon until 11 o'clock at night? you must be hard. like, totally i bet you were a drinking professional.

For starters policy would be better off realizing that (1) not all use is abuse (even recreationally) and (2) not all drugs are the same level of risky.

Currently the drug warriors draw some bright line in between alcohol (OK!) and weed (Evil!) and then lump weed in with "all other drugs" and take horror stories from the worst of heroin and meth addicts and call that "the dangers of drugs."

Whereas, the first drug (as in something you consume that noticeably alters your mood to the point of possibly not being able to work efficiently, and is enjoyable) that most people consume isn't weed, it's ALCOHOL. But alcohol is okay, for various historical reasons. (Of course there are certainly plenty of modern teetotalling crusaders who would like to ban alcohol again as well.)

Meanwhile, (1) abuse of pain pills is happening, abuse of Ritalin and adderall is DEFINITELY happening (big on college campuses, apparently) but they're prescription so sort of "okay," and (2) zero-tolerance for alcohol and weed particularly for young people is leading them to try smoking crazier and crazier things with probably worse side effects.

This idea that it needs to be all or nothing, that taking one sip is the same as being an addict, and that all substances behave the same way (because they make you "an addict" and that's just terrible!!! You're going to jump off a building and rip your face off!!!) with the same risks, is the problem.

On the other hand there are people who seem to think that well, if we legalize things no one will have a drug problem, that isn't right either. There are alcoholics and alcohol is legal. But!! For people who DO have an addiction problem (because people can get addicted to all sorts of things, not even just substances either) making some way for them to properly get treatment for it is probably a better way to go, I would think. Lots of people do realize they have a problem, even aside from the hard core problem people whom maybe just plain can't be helped.

FTFA: "We didn't know it was going to be heroin. We knew something was going to replace pills."

You don't say....

Did they think the replacement would be caffeine?

I think they were hoping people would turn to Jesus. People tell me there ain't much else to do there.

Lunaville: I'm sure the increased supply of heroin has little to nothing to do with our liberating Afghanistan. That said some people seem to have an internal need to destroy themselves.

Some people do need to destroy themselves, unfortunately. Anyway, the article said the smack was "imported into the United States from Mexico and Central America." That leads me to believe it's "Black Tar" from Mexico (or the brown powder made from cutting that with lactose or some other white powder), instead of the "normal" form of white powder heroin from Central Asia. In the past few years there's been a lot of talk in the regional media about Black Tar, including attributing its presence to "illegal immigrants" plotting to pollute our boldily fluids.

So what happened to old-fashioned white powder heroin anyway? Is it still around in the really big cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.)?

(Begin blathering rant:) By the way, yesterday I went to do an "Intake" at a psychiatric clinic, filling out forms etc., so I can keep getting the Wellbutrin XL and Celexa that I've become used to these past few years. I was a little dismayed that they required me to aswer questions about recent illegal/illict drug use (all no, dammit) and piss in a cup but I did it anyway, then one form contained a clause I was expected to agree to and initial: something like "I agree to come in for random drug tests on demand."

Of course I blew my stack. In writing and in person I informed the staff there that in the first place I'm there for Wellbutrin and Celexa, neither of which was a Controlled Substance the last time I checked, and that during a scheduled appointment if the prescriber gives me a good reason for urine or blood tests ("checking for liver damage" or some such) I'll gladly cooperate, but there's no way in hell I'm going to agree to drop everything an come in for a drug test at their beck and call.

First the answer was "Then maybe you don't need to come here then." That pissed me off even more. I pointed out again that Celexa and Wellbutin are not Controlled Substances and said that I'm not going to be seeking Controlled Subvstances there (certainly not after that), then asked again why they would want to test me. Finally, after treating me like I was "being difficult" for five minutes, somebody gave me an answer that made some kind of sense: if they're not prescribing me Controlled Substances then "of course" I won't have to be tested. Okay...

So why didn't they say so in the first place instead of acting like they were going to have me forcibly tased for questioning them? And why do they piss-test everybody trying to sign up for any reason and shove their policy on Controlled Substances at them? It would make more sense if they'd first establish prescribing a Controlled Substance was an issue, then say as "As a condition of giving you a prescription for that we'll want you to piss in a cup and to read, understand and consent to abide by our policy on Controlled Substances as spelled out in this here paper."

Nope, instead they expect everybody coming there for anything to agree to random drug tests right off the bat. They might at least change the wording, something like "I agree that if I'm ever prescribed a Controlled Substance [there] I will come in for random drug tests."

They also make everybody to agree to fill all their prescriptions at the same pharmacy, to stop getting pain pills there if they go elsewhere (such as a pain clinic) and get pain pills, etc. etc. etc. They explain that as part of KY's new "get tough on pill abuse" policy; they haven't yet explained why they insist on shoving this crap at everybody who walks in the door.

They gave me an appoointment about 3 weeks hence, but it would not surprize me if they call to cancel because they think I'll be "disruptive" or something. Like I said, when I questioned this policy their Weeners was to slap me for challenging their authority, that it took about five minutes of back & forth before some employee finally "clarified" that that most likely won't apply to me anyway. The logical answer would have begun with another question: "Do you want us to give you a Controlled Substance?" to which I'd answer in the negative, then they'd say "Oh, so that doesn't apply to you anyway, never mind about it." (Leaving aside the issue of piss tests on demand for anybody, which I told to be tyrannical.)

Any Farker who's bothered to not Ignore me over the past few months has undoubtedly noted that I have "problems with Authority"; if they're not very nice to me when/if I go for my first real appointment I'm going to walk down the street to another psych clinic and see what they have to say for themselves. If nothing else my Family Practice doctor will probably prescribe to get me through the winter: she can be a little bossy but at least she's nice about it and doesn't bother me with intrusive crap that doesn't have anything to do with why I'm there (e.g., that practice has never wanted a drug analysis in the 5 years I've been going).

"There is some shiat I will not eat." It's too bad more people don't draw that line clearly: there is some shiat They should know better than to bring up by now.

"There's always some type of drug to step up when another gets taken out," said Dan Smoot, law enforcement director of Operation UNITE, ... "We didn't know it was going to be heroin. We knew something was going to replace pills."

I don't understand how officer Smoot can say this and not immediately conclude "therefore, the war on drugs is doomed to be a complete failure and waste of money."

The people who are going to take drugs are going to take drugs no matter what; we aren't going to convince them to stop. If you remove one drug, they will find another, and that new one might be worse. We really have to start treating drug addiction as a health issue, rather than a law enforcement issue. The drug war is costing us too much for no socially useful results.